PART II
What is the arrest procedure — from filing to sheriff to vessel?
Bottom line: The foreign claimant files an admiralty suit and an application for arrest before the appropriate coastal High Court. On the Court finding a prima facie maritime claim, a warrant of arrest is issued. The Sheriff (or in some Courts, the Court’s designated officer) executes the warrant at the port where the vessel is berthed. The vessel is then physically detained pending security or further order of the Court.
The workflow in practice
Step 1 — Pre-filing preparation.
The claimant should assemble the contractual and documentary basis for the maritime claim — bills of lading, charterparty, invoices, contracts, correspondence, and evidence of default or non-payment. The claimant should also establish the statutory basis for arrest under Sections 4 and 5 of the 2017 Act and identify the vessel’s ownership and relevant contractual relationships. Where the underlying dispute is subject to arbitration or foreign court jurisdiction, the admiralty arrest application in India is nevertheless available as a security remedy.
Step 2 — Filing the admiralty suit.
At Bombay, an admiralty action in rem is commenced by a plaint. The Bombay Admiralty Rules require the plaint to be signed and verified in accordance with the CPC and the applicable Rules. An application for arrest is made in the suit and must be supported by an affidavit stating, among other matters, the nature of the claim, that it remains unsatisfied, the nationality of the vessel, the port at which arrest is sought and whether a valid caveat against arrest exists. The claimant must also provide an unconditional and irrevocable undertaking in damages in the form required by the Rules.
Step 3 — The urgent hearing.
Where the vessel is at risk of sailing, the application should be presented to the Court as an urgent matter. The Court considers the statutory basis for arrest and the evidence placed before it and may grant an order of arrest without prior notice where the circumstances justify such relief. The fact that the Rules expressly contemplate a caveat against arrest does not prevent a claimant from applying for arrest; however, where a valid caveat exists, the procedural consequences under the Bombay Rules need to be considered.
There should not be a fixed expectation that every application will be heard within a particular number of hours. Timing depends on the urgency, filing readiness, Registry requirements, the Court’s roster and the circumstances of the vessel. Out-of-hours or weekend arrangements should therefore be confirmed with local admiralty counsel and the Registry rather than assumed.
Step 4 — Execution by Sheriff.
Once the arrest order is made, the warrant is ordinarily issued and executed by the Sheriff of Mumbai, Deputy Sheriff or another authorised officer. The Bombay Rules expressly provide that a warrant of arrest may be executed only by the Sheriff unless the Court orders otherwise. In appropriate circumstances, the Court may dispense with the warrant and provide that the vessel is arrested upon service of the arrest order itself.
The operational stage requires immediate coordination between the claimant’s lawyers, the Sheriff’s office, the vessel’s master/agent and the relevant port authorities. Service is ordinarily effected on the vessel by serving the original warrant or order on the master, or in another manner directed by the Judge.
Step 5 — Notice to the vessel owner and interested parties.
The vessel owner is notified of the arrest, typically through the vessel’s local agent. The owner then has an opportunity to appear before the Court to challenge the arrest, provide security for release, or negotiate with the arresting claimant.
K S&Co view — The Sheriff coordination is the operationally critical step
In practice, obtaining an arrest order is only the first step. The effectiveness of a ship arrest often depends on how quickly and efficiently the order is coordinated with the Sheriff, port authorities, vessel agents and other relevant stakeholders. Counsel should ensure that the warrant is promptly communicated and physically executed, that the vessel’s location and movements are verified, and that the port and vessel agent are informed of the arrest and its operational consequences. Early coordination is particularly important where the vessel is expected to sail shortly. For a foreign claimant, close post-order monitoring and clear communication with the Sheriff’s office can therefore be as important as obtaining the arrest order itself.
Action point for foreign counsel
Have the claim documents, affidavit and undertaking in damages ready before the vessel is at risk, instruct local admiralty counsel to seek an urgent arrest order, and coordinate the warrant with the Sheriff, port and vessel agent immediately after it is issued, monitoring until the arrest is physically executed.
FAQ — How quickly can a foreign claimant obtain a ship arrest order in India?
There is no prescribed statutory waiting period for obtaining a ship-arrest order in India. Where the vessel is within the Court’s admiralty jurisdiction and the claimant can demonstrate a prima facie maritime claim under Sections 4 and 5 of the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017, the Bombay High Court has, in appropriate cases, granted arrest orders on an urgent basis, including on the day the matter is placed before the Court. Recent orders also demonstrate that the Court may dispense with the formal warrant and permit the claimant to communicate the authenticated order directly to the Sheriff, Master, Port and Customs authorities by email or hand delivery. The practical determinant is therefore preparation: foreign claimants should have the contractual documents, invoices, statement of account, vessel particulars, ownership evidence and supporting affidavit ready before the vessel arrives. Where sailing is imminent, evidence of the risk of departure and the resulting prejudice should be specifically placed before the Court.
What security options are available to release an arrested vessel?
Bottom line: The three main security instruments accepted by Indian admiralty courts are (i) a Letter of Undertaking (LOU) from a Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Club, (ii) cash security paid into Court, and (iii) a bank guarantee. The choice of security instrument, the quantum, and the acceptability terms are matters for the Court and the parties. In practice, the LOU from a recognised P&I Club is the most common instrument for release of a vessel arrested for a commercial claim.
The security instruments in detail
Letter of Undertaking (LOU) from a P&I Club
— the standard instrument for release of a vessel arrested for a commercial claim. The vessel’s P&I Club (Protection and Indemnity Club — the mutual insurance association covering the vessel for third-party liability) provides a written undertaking to pay the claim (up to a specified quantum) if the claimant succeeds in the underlying dispute. Recognised P&I Clubs (members of the International Group of P&I Clubs) are typically accepted by Indian courts.
Cash security into Court
— the vessel owner deposits the specified quantum with the Court, typically in a designated interest-bearing account. Cash security is straightforward but ties up capital.
Bank guarantee
— a bank guarantee from a bank acceptable to the Court, in the specified quantum and on terms acceptable to the claimant and the Court. In practice, bank guarantees are less common than P&I Club LOUs because P&I Club LOUs are the industry-standard instrument.
Undertakings from parties
Gujarat HC Division Bench on Vessel Arrest — Undertakings Cannot Substitute Arrest Under the Admiralty Act 2017
In Segal Ships v. M.V. Tulsi Sagar 1, O.J. Appeal No. 8/2025, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court considered whether undertakings not to sail by vessel owners could be accepted in lieu of arrest under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The dispute concerned five vessels and a maritime claim of approximately INR 132 crores. Setting aside the Single Judge’s order accepting the undertakings, the Division Bench restored the arrest warrants and directed that the vessels be re-arrested. Once the Court is satisfied that a maritime claim has arisen and the vessel is available, the only option available to the Court is to order arrest. Acceptance of assurance/undertaking is not recognized under the Admiralty Act. P&I club undertakings, verbal promises, or written assurances not to sail are no substitute for ship arrest. The judgment restores the primacy of action in rem and rejects the Single Judges deviation.
The decision reinforces the principle that admiralty security is founded on the arrest of the vessel (the res), rather than personal undertakings by the owner. An undertaking to remain within the jurisdiction does not provide the claimant with the same security or enforcement position as an actual arrest. The ruling is therefore significant for maritime claimants, particularly foreign claimants, in ensuring that a prima facie maritime claim is secured through arrest of the vessel as contemplated under the 2017 Act.
The quantum of security
In fixing security for the release of an arrested vessel, the Bombay High Court, in the exercise of its admiralty jurisdiction, ordinarily begins from the amount claimed, together with a reasonable allowance for interest and costs. This figure, however, is treated as a starting point rather than an entitlement. The Court is not required to conduct a trial of the merits at this stage, but it does test whether the quantum is arguable and coherent on the material placed before it. The Court is also mindful that security should not, as a general rule, exceed the value of the vessel, a principle drawn from the international arrest conventions and reflected in the approach under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017. The result is a pragmatic exercise in balancing the claimant’s right to adequate security against the defendant’s interest in the release of the vessel without being burdened by an exaggerated claim, and orders for reduced security are often made without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.
Where a particular component of the claim is prima facie unsustainable, the Court may exclude that component and reduce the security accordingly, as demonstrated in M.V. Lima V v. Coastal Marine Construction & Engineering Ltd. The Court may also have regard to the value of the arrested vessel; M.V. Nordlake v. Union of India holds that where the vessel’s value is lower than the claimant’s best arguable case, security should not exceed the independently assessed value of the vessel.
K S&Co view — Security choice guidance for foreign claimants
For a foreign claimant, the choice of security should be driven less by the label “LOU” and more by the certainty of enforcement. Cash or bank security provides the greatest immediacy and avoids dependence on the solvency, jurisdiction or cooperation of an overseas security provider. A first-class P&I Club LOU can nevertheless provide commercially effective security where its terms are clear, unconditional and enforceable in the relevant proceedings. Before accepting an LOU, a claimant should therefore scrutinize the Club, governing law, jurisdiction, payment mechanism, quantum and any conditions attached to enforcement. The objective should be security that is practically as effective as the arrest it replaces.
Action point for foreign counsel
Where the vessel owner’s P&I Club is a recognised International Group member, LOU is the standard release mechanism. Where the P&I Club identity or standing is uncertain, press for cash security or a bank guarantee from a recognised Indian bank.
FAQ — What security must be provided to release a ship arrested in India?
The three standard security instruments accepted by Indian admiralty courts are (i) a Letter of Undertaking (LOU) from a Protection and Indemnity (P&I) Club, (ii) cash security into Court, and (iii) a bank guarantee. LOUs from International Group P&I Clubs are the most common instrument in commercial claim releases. Mere undertakings by the vessel owner or master not to sail do not constitute security — the Gujarat High Court has confirmed that arrest is mandatory where a prima facie maritime claim exists under the Admiralty Act, 2017.
Continue Reading Our Ship Arrest in India Series
Part I examines the legal framework, maritime claims and court jurisdiction.
Ship Arrest in India: A Foreign Claimant’s Practical Guide — Part I
Part III will explore sister-ship arrest, ownership requirements and cross-border enforcement.
